Seraphinianus
Banned
were xbox games pushed to 360 with 720p @ 60 fps?
720p and maybe an unstable 30fps
were xbox games pushed to 360 with 720p @ 60 fps?
77xx and 78xx are supposed to be GCN based as well.
How many times do I have to explain that im not talking about the overall life of the PS3?
Game consoles are always most profitable in the last few years. So I think there's an argument to be made for the long tail.
So what are the odds of there being a kinect free sku of the next xbox?
I think it will come out this year because I don't think MS will give Nintendo the market uncontested (especially their largest market) for any length of time.
Microsoft, I think, do not now and probably never will consider Nintendo a real competitor.
I would call out-selling your competitors success. Don't get it twisted though, the overall project from 2006 forward will be considered a failure, all things considered.
Its about how you finish though, and how you set yourself up for the next cycle.
Its not as black and white as that, sony did something unprecedented in developing the PS3 the way they did. Nintendo's Wii was unconventional in that it went a completely different direction than the rest of the industry. This whole console cycle was idiosyncratic.
Its not as black and white as that, sony did something unprecedented in developing the PS3 the way they did. Nintendo's Wii was unconventional in that it went a completely different direction than the rest of the industry. This whole console cycle was idiosyncratic.
Nintendo's success with the Wii was somewhat surprising, but Sony didn't do anything unconventional at all. The most powerful console has come in last place 3 console cycles in a row.
It's the fact that they make them developer unfriendly.
All that power doesn't show til mid + cycle. Easier to use development tools should be the priority if you want to put a powerful system in the market.
PS2 was a bitch too and it still took 1st place last gen.
So you are advocating unfriendly development tools? The hardware is platform. The developers make the platform a success.
I'd say $399 on the dot with both Kinect 2.0 and a fairly traditional controller included. They'll take a minor loss at the start, the hardware will be a lot more capable than the WiiU. Probably by about the same range as the WiiU is over the 360. Less or more, but in that general vicinity.No Kinect free sku + this hardware makes me think there is now way the system launches for less than $400 at launch. It might even have a higher sku with a larger hdd. Now I wonder what the Wii-U price is going to be.
No doubt. $499 isn't even far-fetched. The 20GB 360 launched at $399 (at a loss). Years later the model with Kinect and a 250GB HDD sells for $399 (with decent margin), which is kind of nuts when you consider the Wii sells for $149.No Kinect free sku + this hardware makes me think there is now way the system launches for less than $400 at launch.
Games be very pretty.What do these specs mean?
PS2 was a bitch too and it still took 1st place last gen.
I'd personally like the next Xbox to be around $500 and still sold at a loss.
Can we do something about the damn clipping situation next gen?
I am just wondering what kind of interface the nextbox is going to have. Also... RAM.. how much of it will be there for it.
Aye. Last time I saw the calculations blu-ray licensing revenue looked more like 10s of millions of dollars, 100s of millions in a rather extreme success scenario (bigger than DVD ever was).BluRay royalties can't conceivably make up for PS3 losses over a ten-year timeframe, even if you're just looking at the raw losses and not the delta from hypothetical successful PS3 to real-life failure PS3.
You can explain something foolish as many times as you want and it won't make it into something smart. You can't isolate the last year of the PS3 from the context of its entire lifespan. The PS3 as a product is an immense, almost unprecedentedly huge failure, full stop. Any minimal, fledgling success late in the generation is entirely irrelevant in the shadow of that massive, irrevocable failure.
KageMaru said:I thought you retracted your comment on the PS3 outselling it's competitors, no?
Also considering how the PS3 isn't close to recovering it's cost and how Sony has never been in this bad of a position leading up to the next console cycle, I'm still lost how it can be considered a success at this point in time.
KageMaru said:Wat? o_0
Well I guess you can say it's unprecedented how quickly they lost both market and mindshare, but Nintendo has already made that claim back with the NES -> SNES transition =p
Nintendo's success with the Wii was somewhat surprising, but Sony didn't do anything unconventional at all. The most powerful console has come in last place 3 console cycles in a row.
Ummmm Sony started a joint venture(STI) to develop the processor for this system with a huge ass budget. They originally planned to shoehorn rasterization and texture units somewhere and use two of these things, one acting like a full fledged GPU. They scrapped that idea very late in the design process and contracted Nvidia to make a chip in the fastest time they possibly could. Lets not forget splitting the ram and virtually halfing the ram the GPU could use in any practical manner.
I just read an article about Dave Cutler of VMS and Windows NT fame joining the Xbox team. Which is baffling to me because Cutler's a brilliant product manager and software engineer but his expertise is distributed computing and workstations and I have no idea what he'll be contributing to the Xbox project.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624605p1.htmlThe oft-quoted rumour that the PS3 was originally designed to have two CELLs, one acting as CPU and one as a GPU is not true.
At least, not according to the lead IBM engineer in his book. Sony were planning on creating their own scaled down GPU, as the CELL was planned to be able to perform a lot of the typical GPU tasks.
This GPU design kept slipping, so they made the decision to scrap it and go out to market. Which is how they ended up with the RSX.
I just read an article about Dave Cutler of VMS and Windows NT fame joining the Xbox team. Which is baffling to me because Cutler's a brilliant product manager and software engineer but his expertise is distributed computing and workstations and I have no idea what he'll be contributing to the Xbox project.
No doubt. $499 isn't even far-fetched. The 20GB 360 launched at $399 (at a loss). Years later the model with Kinect and a 250GB HDD sells for $399 (with decent margin), which is kind of nuts when you consider the Wii sells for $149.
I'd personally like the next Xbox to be around $500 and still sold at a loss.
No doubt. $499 isn't even far-fetched. The 20GB 360 launched at $399 (at a loss). Years later the model with Kinect and a 250GB HDD sells for $399 (with decent margin), which is kind of nuts when you consider the Wii sells for $149.
I'd personally like the next Xbox to be around $500 and still sold at a loss.
there's no way 720 is coming at at anything over $400. they will not pull a sony next gen.
No, it isn't.
I'm thinking that MS is going to find a way to unify content on their XBox platform with their PC and mobile devices through the cloud.I just read an article about Dave Cutler of VMS and Windows NT fame joining the Xbox team. Which is baffling to me because Cutler's a brilliant product manager and software engineer but his expertise is distributed computing and workstations and I have no idea what he'll be contributing to the Xbox project.
there's no way 720 is coming at at anything over $400. they will not pull a sony next gen.
Unless MS designs the 360 differently. A split mem pool could up the amount if they go for an older RAM as a giant cache or something.Unless they get memory density up soon, then the next gen consoles will be topping out at 2 gigs of ram.
Problem is how are they going to be able to sell it @400 with these kinds of specs for the GPU and a CPU to match if they also plan on including a kinect in the box as well for every sku?
Honestly I could see it going either way.and u know their product lineup how?
with kinect still selling like crazy why would they bundle it? why keep on selling it as an add-on and make more money? u gotta remember they are making over $100 per pop on kinect standalones at this point.
What do these specs mean?
I'm guessing these dominate whatever the best the Wii U may offer?- Games will look sexy as hell
- A shit dev will still make a shit game
- A great dev will still make a great game
- Gamers will moan regardless
....
Any discussion of the PS3 project as a whole (and the place of the PlayStation brand within Sony) has to start and end with this understanding. It was not a success in any way; it was a disaster. A couple more projects as unprofitable and destructive as the PS3 would sink the company. Any PS4 project that isn't being questioned every step of the way with "how can we keep this from being like the PS3" is not being done with due diligence.
Well, they targeted the market Nintendo had a solid grip on, with Kinect, so clearly Nintendo's success must have affected their business model? And considering the fact that Wii U is aimed at the market where Microsoft has had great success this gen, should be somewhat considered as a threat to them, right? Of course, there is a chance that the Wii U may play second fiddle to the PS3 and 360 when it comes to third-party games, especially for a few years, and this could be the main reason why you may see MS/Sony launching their consoles in 2013/14.Microsoft, I think, do not now and probably never will consider Nintendo a real competitor.
What do these specs mean?
and u know their product lineup how?
with kinect still selling like crazy why would they bundle it? why keep on selling it as an add-on and make more money? u gotta remember they are making over $100 per pop on kinect standalones at this point.
I hope the next XBOX costs 750 US dollars, sold at a 150 dollar loss. I can afford it, and I'm the only person I care about. It will come with a 512GB SSD, Crossfire 7990s and a 16 core CPU. But it will still only have a DVD drive.
It is, very much so, on the topic we are discussing.
While it's true that companies measure their results on a quarterly and annual basis, and losses from past years are generally sunk costs in terms of determining the correct course of action to take going forward, you can't judge individual products with a planned finite lifespan by the same standards. All game consoles since the mid-nineties have been built on a business model that explicitly amortizes costs over an entire generation because of the nature of this model: immense R&D, manufacturing, and unit-sales losses upfront to establish a hold in the marketplace, offset by immense profits late in the generation when costs are down, hardware is profitable, and software sales are up.
When this strategy works (see: PS1, PS2) the costs are kept low and the long tail of profitable sales is significant, so the project as a whole is profitable (and therefore successful.) When it's unsuccessful, costs spiral out of control and dig an inescapable hole, such that any later quarterly profits are just money to shovel into that hole in the hopes of filling it up a little. That's exactly what's happened with the PS3 -- its late-gen success is now shoveling money into that immense, unfillable hole.
Any discussion of the PS3 project as a whole (and the place of the PlayStation brand within Sony) has to start and end with this understanding. It was not a success in any way; it was a disaster. A couple more projects as unprofitable and destructive as the PS3 would sink the company. Any PS4 project that isn't being questioned every step of the way with "how can we keep this from being like the PS3" is not being done with due diligence.
I'd rather not get into this too much, but this sort of black and white reasoning is nonsense. Sony has out sold their competitors at certain points with changing strategies. if Sony is keen on the small successes while facing their overall failures it can help keep them away from these issues in the future. having those points of changing tides can be crucial in the success of future playstations. you can count the small successes in spite of an overall failure for a console generation. consider business war, you can lose many battles and still overcome defeat. so many wars in history were won when little hope was left.
Sony has fucked up a ton this generation, but they have also given gamers a shit ton of great exclusive content. I would count many successes for Sony this hardware generation even with the overall losses they've incurred.
I'd personally like the next Xbox to be around $500 and still sold at a loss.